by Geoff Hoff~
There has been much speculation in the last 400 years as to who actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays. The original suppositions, usually now considered as jokes, were that either Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlow or the 6th Earl of Darby did them. The compelling reasoning goes that the man from Stratford, a small, rural village, had no access to the kind of knowledge evident in the plays and poems, especially knowledge of the inner workings of the court and politics. It also points out that the man from Stratford’s name was actually Shaksper.
Michael Sadler, author of E.O. An Historical Farce of Truly Elizabethan Proportions, takes the position that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote them, but, because of the societal restrictions against members of the court perusing artistic endeavors for the masses, which was considered too lowly for a courtier, had to use a pen name. The most compelling, although not the only, evidence for this is a poem attributed to Shakespeare signed E.O.
This controversy is a wonderful idea for a play and Mr. Sadler has obviously done much scholarly work on this subject. He even wrote an hour long lecture on the subject, which is making the rounds of LA schools and libraries. However, this play is not really that play. It takes the authorship of E.O. for granted, as background, and focuses on two events: Act One is mostly about the corruption and intrigue involved in building the Globe Theatre. Act Two is mostly about a masque put on by Queen Elizabeth so she can sing, even though she has a truly awful voice, and is mostly a mess.
Upon entering the theatre I was heartened by the simple but effective design of the very, very small space (four doors draped with good cloth) and the music, good Elizabethan fare. I was then a bit disconcerted to notice that there were only four light fixtures, and they were colored flood lamps. As soon as the requisite announcement about cell phones and pagers started I suspected we may be in trouble. It was over the speakers and was obviously one woman playing two parts, one a commoner, one the Queen, arguing with each other. It could have been funny, but the fact that it was one person doing both voices gave it a “let’s put on a play” feel. (The sound for the production was evidently being played through a computer — at one point the Windows email notification noise filled the space.)
There is much funny in this play; early on we watch de Vere create the To Be or Not To Be soliloquy, finally deciding on using the word “fardels”, which becomes a running joke. (The recitation of the famous speech does go on a bit long, though.) Maggie Grant is exquisite as The Queen with wonderful comic timing, an ability with physical humor and an admirable stage presence. She is almost in the league of Carol Burnett in her delightful mugging and vocal manipulations. She brings a marvelous sense of royal dignity, lust and cluelessness to her role. Samm Hill is also quite good as Will Shaksper, although he plays the country bumpkin as a sort of blend of Orson Wells and Dom DeLuise with a rich, textured, deep voice and outrageous mannerisms. The interstitial music sounded like a Swingle Singers’ versions of Elizabethan fare, which was a great choice. There is one hysterically funny bit in the second act where the Queen commands that Cadbury (well played by Brian Edward Campbell) can no longer ever speak any word containing an “M”.
Victoria Marcello as Lady Larkin brings a fun sense of comedy to the stage, and Andrew Varenhorst is fine as Robert. The less that can be said about poor Bob Ebinger as Lord Burghley the better. Which brings us to Wayne Stribbling Jr. as Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. He has, unfortunately, neither the facility with the language nor the facility with the dialect to adequately pull the part off and, although he gives it his all, doesn’t have the physical comedy chops needed in the second act.
Mr. Sadler played with the work of Shakespeare, sometimes effectively, sometimes not, but the circumstances that supported the farce, especially in Act Two, were often completely undisciplined. There was an attempted to emulate the comedy of Shakespeare (two sets of twins and mistaken identity, for instance) but it was mostly just hard to watch. The long sequence in which de Vere tries to turn Hamlet into a comedy due to Royal command is the low point. I suspect Mr. Sadler is a good writer, he has an obvious love of language and some flair for comedy, and I would actually like to see this play reworked and put on in a larger space that could support the farce better.
The costumes (uncredited in the program – that seems to be a new trend in small theatre here in Los Angeles) were quite good, obviously well made with fine materials. The direction, by Dan Spurgeon, was uninspired.
E.O. an Historical Farce of Truly Elizabethan Proportions is performed Fridays and Saturdays at 8 pm through may 29th, 2010.
Ticket prices: $17 advanced purchase, $20 at the door.
The Tre Stage is located at 1534 N. La Brea Avenue, 2nd Floor in Hollywood, just north of Sunset.
Reservations online at www.plays411.com/eo or by phone at (323) 960-5775.
